At 14:41 23/03/2005, Darrell Shimel wrote:
> > That's correct, 'though it's important to say
that
> > that was not the point
> > of the design - it was to "correct" some things
> > which were less true to the
> > military positions as described or suggested in
"The
> > Lord of the
> > Rings." The DS forces are poised to surge out
of
> > Mordor with awesome
> > force, and the FP, though in a far from hopeless
> > situation, start
> > definitely on the back foot.
>
>
>LGT, care to take us on again? This time you get
DS,
>we get FP?
I'd love to, and fully endorse the remark that WotR
is the best scenario
yet. Unfortunately however, I'm no longer part of a
regular "grudge"
team. If there's another 9 wanderers out there who
want to give you a
thrashing, I'll join up. (Or 4 for that matter if
we're playing 2 nations
each.)
Jot my name down, I'd be another wanderer willing to
take part
JB
--- "Laurence G. Tilley" <lgtilley@m...>
wrote:
> At 14:41 23/03/2005, Darrell Shimel wrote:
> > > That's correct, 'though it's important to say
> that
> > > that was not the point
> > > of the design - it was to "correct" some things
> > > which were less true to the
> > > military positions as described or suggested in
> "The
> > > Lord of the
> > > Rings." The DS forces are poised to surge out
> of
> > > Mordor with awesome
> > > force, and the FP, though in a far from hopeless
> > > situation, start
> > > definitely on the back foot.
> >
> >
> >LGT, care to take us on again? This time you get
> DS,
> >we get FP?
>
> I'd love to, and fully endorse the remark that WotR
> is the best scenario
> yet. Unfortunately however, I'm no longer part of a
> regular "grudge"
> team. If there's another 9 wanderers out there who
> want to give you a
> thrashing, I'll join up. (Or 4 for that matter if
> we're playing 2 nations
> each.)
>
>
> []
> Laurence G.Tilley
